Editorial: Clarke BOE, counsel need schooling on records

Editorial

Posted: Tuesday, February 24, 2009

By

Despite the position of the Clarke County Board of Education and its attorney to the contrary, the contract offered to new Clarke County Schools Superintendent Philip Lanoue was a public document even before the new superintendent signed it. The fact the board and its attorney apparently didn't know that is a clear sign they may need a detailed review of the state's Open Records Act, which sets the parameters for public access to government documents.

In the hours before the board voted unanimously Thursday to extend Lanoue a $165,000 per year contract (bumped up to $170,000 when he completes work on his doctorate), board member Denise Mewborn, who headed the district's months-long superintendent search, told this newspaper the contract wouldn't be released until Lanoue signed it.

Lanoue signed the contract Saturday, while in the area looking for a home, and board attorney Terrell Benton made the document available to this newspaper later that day.

After the board's Thursday vote, Benton defended not releasing the contract until it had been signed by Lanoue by telling told a Banner-Herald reporter, "It's not a contract until all parties sign it - it's just that simple. Mr. Lanoue deserves to read and see his contract before he reads about it in the newspaper. That's just fairness."

Of course, to make any logical sense of the Thursday positions of the board vice president and the board attorney on the contract, it would have to be assumed Lanoue had absolutely no idea what his contract would entail prior to signing it.

It also would have to be assumed that the public had no interest in knowing what was in the contract until it was a done deal.

Those, of course, are patently ridiculous assumptions.

Following the board's Thursday vote, this newspaper contacted its counsel with questions about the decision to withhold the contract until it was signed. Banner-Herald editors were told by e-mail that the relevant portion of state law "defines public records to include 'all documents, papers, ... maintained or received in the course of operation of a public office or agency.' There is no exception for drafts, unsigned contracts, etc. If the government has it and it pertains to the business of the government agency, it is public."

In other words, the superintendent's contract was subject to release to the public before being signed.

In all candor, this newspaper should have been more aggressive in seeking out details of the terms of Lanoue's employment as soon as the school board identified him as its preferred choice for the post. The board made that identification at a Jan. 28 meeting, with a 7-0 vote to begin contract negotiations with Lanoue. However, that lack of diligence on the newspaper's part in no way excuses the apparent lack of awareness on the part of the board and its attorney that Lanoue's contract was subject to disclosure even before he had signed it.

In fairness, there are more than a dozen exemptions from disclosure included in the Open Records Act, covering everything from certain information in medical records to records identifying the location of rare plant species.

What's troubling in this case, though, is that Benton couldn't identify any exemption upon which he and the school board were relying to withhold the contract, other than his assertion that there was no contract unless it was signed. Even when he released the contract Saturday, Benton again indicated he wasn't aware of any exemption in the Open Records Act that would allow the school district to hold the contract until it was signed.

As the Clarke County Board of Education and its attorney surely must realize, part of the board's responsibility is keeping the community apprised of how the business of the county's public school system is being conducted. Part of meeting that responsibility is providing the public with access to documents pertaining to the board's work. To the extent that they're unaware, or confused, about the release of documents, the board and its attorney are failing to meet that responsibility.